Case Law Details
Saurav Kumar Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court addressed the issue of GST registration cancellation in the case of Saurav Kumar Son of Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Resident of Fultakiya Kesariya Vs Union of India through the Secretary. This case sheds light on the importance of timely compliance with statutory requirements and the consequences of failing to do so.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner faced cancellation of GST registration and sought relief from the High Court. The crux of the case revolved around the petitioner’s failure to file an appeal within the stipulated timeframe as per Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), which allows for an appeal within three months from the date of the order, with an additional one-month window for delay condonation under satisfactory conditions.
The petitioner’s appeal was filed significantly beyond the permissible period, demonstrating a lack of diligence in adhering to statutory deadlines. The High Court emphasized that the legal system favors those who are diligent and not those who are indolent. Furthermore, the Court highlighted an Amnesty Scheme introduced by the government, which the petitioner failed to utilize, that allowed for the restoration of canceled registrations upon the payment of all dues.
The reason for the cancellation, as stated in the show-cause notice, was the non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner did not contest the receipt of the show-cause notice nor the fact that returns had not been filed as required. This lack of compliance with fundamental tax obligations underscored the justification for the registration’s cancellation.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition by the Patna High Court in this case underscores the judiciary’s stance on the importance of compliance with tax laws and procedural timelines. It serves as a stark reminder to all registered dealers under GST to diligently adhere to filing requirements and to utilize the appellate remedies provided by the law in a timely manner. This judgment highlights that the courts are unlikely to intervene in matters where taxpayers fail to exercise due diligence, especially when alternative remedies have not been pursued within the prescribed limits. The case exemplifies the consequences of non-compliance and the judiciary’s support for maintaining the integrity of tax administration processes.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of registration by Annexure-3 order passed on 22.03.2023.
2. Admittedly, there is an appellate remedy which the petitioner availed with gross delay.
3. Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“BGST Act” hereafter) permits an appeal to be filed within three months and also apply for delay condonation with satisfactory reasons within a further period of one month. Here, the order impugned in the appeal was dated 22.03.2023. An appeal was to be filed on or before 21.06.2023 and if necessary with a delay condonation application within one month thereafter. The appeal is said to have been filed only on 02.09.2023, after about 02 months and 13 days from the date on which even the extended limitation period expired.
4. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The law favors the diligent and not the indolent.
5. Further, the Government had come out with an Amnesty Scheme by Circular No. 3 of 2023, by which the registered dealers, whose registrations were canceled were permitted to restore their registration on payment of all dues between 31.03.2023 to 31.08.2023. The petitioner did not avail of such remedy also.
6. The petitioner does not have any case that the show-cause notice was not received by him. Further, it is also pertinent that the reason stated in the show-cause notice for cancellation of registration is that the petitioner has not filed returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner does not have a case that he had in fact filed a return in the continuous period of six months.
7. The writ petition would stand dismissed.
Author Bio
